Can't see it myself. As soon as it gets that bad the energy companies will put all their effort into alternate resources. At the moment they are still doing all right with oil. Maybe I'm overly optimistic though.

Well Horton it seems is just trying to rile up these 'climate change deniers' whoever they are. Oh right - they're in power... And apparently trying hard to pay scientists to disavow global warming (why is this not a bigger story? It's a little baffling to me). However, if peak oil is on the severe decline phase in our lifetimes, without meaningful alternative energies, I'm thinking 'less international travel for sport' is going to be way down on the list of things I'm worried about.

I couldn't get past the second paragraph. The HuffPo needs some sort of editorial policy before anyone will take them seriously. "Climate change deniers have a lot of things in common with each other - religion, payments from oil companies, ignorance of science, a love of guns, faith in unfettered capitalism, hatred of government, hatred of environmentalists, love of sport." Honestly, fuck off and die if you can't get a point across without resorting to that lame shit.

Honestly, fuck off and die if you can't get a point across without resorting to that lame shit. Agreed. The writer loses any credibility and becomes transparent at that point. The piece died there for me too.

Climate change alarmists have a lot of things in common with each other: heated and cooled homes, mobility made possible by internal combustion engines, consumption of goods and services made possible by said internal combustion engines and the burning of fossil fuels, and an inherent dislike of people making more money than they are.

Hmmm....better jump in and mention that I'm not actually supporting Horton or Huffington by posting this here. I am, however, curious about the hypotheticals: while I don't believe that international and national sport will come to an end (there's too much money involved), could the NBA, for example, become a major player in trading carbon emission credits, or something along those lines? Does a major league season actually require the supply of so many airline flights, etc. that it makes a substantial difference?

I know the climate change deniers have little interest, for the moment, in the fate of the world and all its inhabitants. So I try to think of ways to bring them into reality, kicking and screaming. If you didn't get that this article's intent is to be ridiculous, over-blown, sensational, and exaggerated from the opening sentence, perhaps you are offended by the second paragraph alittle too easily. The reason I say this is because the first sentence questions one's humanity. The second paragraph questions one's political leanings. I take the former to be the bigger affront.

Global warming? it's 30 friggin degrees here in Dallas right now. This is the first time i've ever read the Huffington Post, and will probably be the last. I do believe there will be a greater energy crisis sometime farther along in our lifetime, but eliminating cross-country and international travel for sporting purposes is going a little far. Maybe teams not flying charter all the time and flying with the general public could happen somewhere down the road. I agree with Weedy, if this problem potentially gets this bad travel for sports teams will be one of the last things we will need to worry about.

It is scientifically proven the earth's climate has heated .1 of a degree in the last 100 years. Don't these people know that like the stock market, home sales, etc. that there is an ebb and flow with the earth's climate. Sometimes people have an inflated idea about how "great" mankind is, in that we can actually deteriorate this awesome universe from our intelligence. ie: We hear so much about the ozone deterioration. The sun produces so much ozone in ONE day, we could never do enough to eradicate its production over many years. No, Huffington you're wrong. I wonder if this has anything to do with the latest headlines about "the eco scare" where there was talk about the millions of flowers shipped to Britian for Valentine's Day, that the airplane let off too many emissions, so they would have to shut it down, and stop shipping to Britian.

The article leaves a lot to be desired, but then, so does the hysterical defensiveness that's the response of some to talk of climate change. Some folks deny that climate change is happening because they've done the research and honestly believe so; many, many, many more deny it because to believe it would imply the need for action that might cost them some money or inconvenience. I'm in Weedy's camp; I think the author's focus is on something pretty far down the priority list in a future where basic survival is threatened by our inability to heat our homes. In the here and now, however, climate change is having a devastating effect on some sports, specifically alpine skiing. The retreat of European glaciers and lack of reliable snowfall have absolutely devastated the World Cup schedule this year, with many cancellations of events. There was no Hahnenkamm this year, because...there was no snow.

For the record, I don't doubt some change is occurring, regardless of the empirical evidence currently hitting my window. I just don't see how such rhetoric helps. It doesn't, of course. It's yet another piece of Culture Wars hoohah, where we yell and scream at The Wrong Side rather than trying to find a middle ground. Hooray for being right!

many, many, many more deny it because to believe it would imply the need for action that might cost them some money or inconvenience. Plus, the very catastrophic consequences of global warming are unlikely to really be evident until all of us are long, long dead. Probably from cell phone radiation exposure.

I agree with those who have opined that any legitimate point the author is making is undercut by his rhetoric and style. From a substantive point of view, I think he shows a major lack of understanding regarding the economics of pro sports. Revenues are at record highs in baseball and football. Even assuming we do get some sort of emissions caps and/or hit peak oil, (a) it's not going to happen in the "next few years," and (b) we can't assume that paying emissions penalties or historically high oil prices will keep teams from traveling. I think a lot of this is just wishcasting a return to his romantic ideal of sport. And if we do get to a point where air travel for sport is impossible, I will just feel sad for Dennis Bergkamp that he was born in the wrong era

1. There is good evidence of climate change. 2. There is evidence that there are increased amounts of "greenhouse gases" being emitted. 3. There is evidence that climate change has been a fact of life for several million years, far longer than any increased emissions. 4. Most of those who scream about global warming have some political or business agenda to promote. 5. If the environmentalists are so afraid of the burning of fossil fuels, why are they so dead set against nuclear power? There are no appreciable emissions, but there is a problem of waste disposable (easily solved if Sen. Harry Reid could be moved off of his unreasoning opposition to the Nevada disposal site). 6. The preceding is opinion only. I approve of this message.

Some folks deny that climate change is happening because they've done the research and honestly believe so; many, many, many more deny it because to believe it would imply the need for action that might cost them some money or inconvenience. That's not limited to those who believe there is no climate change. How many people who claim there's climate change have done the research and can back up their claims? I doubt very many. People get a heat wave during the winter and actually point to it as proof it's getting warmer. They ignore the record snow storm the next week. It reminds me of all the pointing at the number of huricanes during the season katrina hit. Proof of global warming. This year, not a single hurricane hit the gulf coast. Is that proof it's not warming? Don't get me wrong. I believe climate change is happening, and I'd rather err on the side of caution. But both sides, for the most part, have beliefs with little to back it up.

Its too bad I missed so much of this discussion, but what with the blizzard conditions and ten inches of snow I was busy shoveling. ( 9 degrees outside with 30 mph sustained winds) can you believe that! Now what was the topic of discussion again?

What a bunch of hyperbolic nonsense... I'm a racing nut. A sport which, let's face it, will be first against the wall when the oil runs out... And already F1 and the like are looking at alternatives. Audi are already running their diesel car, and won Le Mans with it last year. There are racing series out there using bio diesel. There are many alternatives out there for fuel. As oil declines, they'll be more and more research. Shell, Exxon and friends enjoy their money to much to say "Well, that's that then, we had a good run" and shut up shop. Of course they're going to find alternatives. Or to put it another way, David Horton is a tit.

Its too bad I missed so much of this discussion, but what with the blizzard conditions and ten inches of snow I was busy shoveling. ( 9 degrees outside with 30 mph sustained winds) can you believe that! Sure, it's colder and windier where I live. Now what was the topic of discussion again? The topic of the article linked to by the FPP is climate change. The phrase "global warming" is not used in the article. However, it should be pointed out that those who are of the view that human influences are accelerating climate change in a problematic way, have postulated that it is manifesting itself in weather that is more extreme, not uniformly warmer. So, while your snow-shoveling episode may seem to be a convincing argument against climate change, the only thing that it actually disproves is a simplistic misrepresentation of the theory.

You know, I'm about as interested in reading about climate change on SpoFi as I am reading some armchair scientist's half baked assertion that a spate of seasonal weather disproves it as an actual phenomenon. Can we do a little bit better job policing ourselves? It would be great if we could try to keep SpoFi 100% sports related. This post is only incidentally sports related. Whether I agree with the article in question, it's AgendaFilter. Ask yourself, does the article I'm posting come from a site that has a political or religious focus? If so, it's probably not a good thing to post here.

I blame it on climate change. You know, I read something recently on climate change. I can't find it now, though. It's probably due to the loss of my short-term memory brought on by consumption of Aspartame.

Can we do a little bit better job policing ourselves? It would be great if we could try to keep SpoFi 100% sports related. This post is only incidentally sports related. Whether I agree with the article in question, it's AgendaFilter. Perhaps the article is a little thin, but asking, in effect "how would climate change affect sport?" IS 100% sports-related. I'm not trying to push an agenda, and I resent that implication, particularly since I already fucking said as much when I tried to steer the thread back on track. I got news for you Jack: every columnist has an agenda, and that's in part why SportsFilter exists -- to discuss and ferret out the bullshit. See, in the process I learned from Drood that there are racing series out there using biodiesel....I never knew that before. That's why I like coming here. In conclusion, if you don't like it, stay out of the fucking thread, take it to the Locker Room, or go back to the comfort of Barry Bonds, Terrell Owens and Michelle Wie. That's 100% sports.

Ordinarily, I couldn't give half a shit, because I think most people come to this site for a little escapism, and fan fanaticism, but because you used such polite and genteel language, "Jack", I'll engage you. By the way, use of the word "fucking" doesn't make you seem more convincing, unless you find Charles Bukowski's odes to fucking whiskey bottles convincing. First off, not a single typo. I am impressed. Secondly, you "already fucking said as much" after your made the original post. The damage was already done; we're off topic, we're discussing a scientific issue that's huge political football (no pun intended) and only a couple of people above actually tried to swing back the issue toward sport. But worse: it's already verged to the ITS 10 DEGREEZ HEAR TODAY. LOLZ GLOBAL WARMING DUZNT EXITS, crap that we've all seen in countless other places. That was the best you could have hoped for by posting this. (HuffPo in SpoFi? Really) Fortunately, you had a few people come to the rescue, but by and large, token efforts. In conclusion, don't shit in SpoFi and tell me to take to the Locker Room. If you're going to post something only tangentially related to sport (so that you can learn something about biodieself, please), at least have the good sense to take your lumps. Read the guidelines and test your post to see if it really satisfies the criteria for a good post. You fucked up, not me. Maybe a better place for your post might have been the locker room, after all.

I think the post does satisfy the criteria for a good post. Sports-related? Yes Newsworthy? I certainly think so. Encourages discussion? Since you've decided to post here three times now you may just be making the thread into a good post. And in conclusion, if you don't think a post fits the guidelines make a damn locker room thread. Title it Don't Shit in SpoFi!, link to this thread, and state how you think all FPP's should be about sports and nothing but sports. Hell if you so desire, I'll do it for you. Beyond that, move on instead of stopping by to shit in the thread.

If my personal three-time participation in a thread is sufficient to satisfy the Encourages discussion criterion, then I certainly feel humbled and blessed by my own power and gravitas. Or, maybe you should set the bar higher. Look, the guy posts what amounts to a 100-word rant about the lack of awareness of the issue of climate change. Not even the central point of the rant, the writer uses professional sport as a device to incite further debate among an audience that he believes to be indifferent. I'm sure the writer's motive was pure, but how is this in and of itself not a troll? It's a deliberately provocative post, and irrelevant to the topice of the site, only barely incidentially is it. To me, this is no different than any of the dozen or so Pat Tillman posts that have materialized here over the past three years. Great topics for debate? Certainly. Interesting and educational? Absolutely. Sports-related? Uh, not really. It's a reach, at the most generous. So, yeah, I bitched about it. And as for "shitting in the thread", sorry for interrupting this very informed back-and-forth about how someone shovelling snow off of their driveway today proves that climate change is bullshit. Great. Very informative. As you were.

To me, this is no different than any of the dozen or so Pat Tillman posts that have materialized here over the past three years. Great topics for debate? Certainly. Interesting and educational? Absolutely. Sports-related? Uh, not really. It's a reach, at the most generous. Oh, so you don't support the troops? Friggin' commie.

This is an insane premise. The cost of flying professional and amature players around the country and the globe is supported by television revenues, merchandise sales and gate receipts. The idea that global warming will effect our thirst for sports on an international level is at best ignorant. This is nothing more than using sports to get your half baked opinion out to the masses. Try walking somewhere, or not feeding the beast by watching, reading and posting liberal opinions in sports columns. I support both the troops and the oil companies, it is -15 degrees wind chill outside, I let my mini van warm up for 20 minutes today, maybe worth a degree or two with my emissions punching a bigger hole in the ozone. Go Cubbies!

Well, YYM beat me to the punch in checking if my FPP satisfies the criteria for a good post. But I'll elaborate on one point -- does it encourage discussion? First of all, I can't know ahead of time that people are going to talk about shoveling snow, but I can guess that it will encourage adult discussion. The fact that it wasn't as good a thread as I'd hoped? Oh well. HuffPo in SpoFi? The internet is a big place.....I never knew what the hell HuffPo was until yesterday.....followed a link from a link from a link...it happens. Yeah, the guy was an asshole, but we dissect asshole columns all the time here; I thought there might be something interesting to discuss about sports and the environment. It certainly wasn't a troll-by-proxy, as you seem to think. I've never once trolled here before, why would I start now? The Locker Room is an area to discuss topics specifically about the site: bugs, the quality of front page links, feature suggestions, and fantasy leagues our members participate in. (Donít discuss etiquette issues hereóif you have a complaint about a memberís conduct, contact us.) The rules are pretty clear. If you don't like the thread, that's your prerogative, but take it to the Locker Room. Apologies for being quick to temper and misquoting Bukowski. And I owe you my thanks as well for your condescension: look, no typos again!

Sure looks like we have a lot of eco-scientist out there. Maybe we should wait till the real results come out in June, then the ones that are right can put thumbs in ears and wiggle the hand back and forth and say I told you so over and over.

I doubt that anyone with half a brain denies that greenhouse gas emmissions are on the upswing, and are contributing to global climate change, jedimaster. But until you, yourself, start using renewable, clean energy sources, then you, yourself, are doomed to be as wrong as the rest of us.

Well mjk I never said I was right or wrong or if I wasn't doing anything to prevent or add to this problem. I also don't deny that greenhouse gases are on the upswing, but everyone talks like this is the only thing that causes global warming. I'm sure we all know there are hundreds of things that can cause this problem, but we put it on the back of mankind because there is no one else that can take the blame. I think that we should wait till we know all the facts (including things we haven't even thought of that might also be helping with this problem and what we can do on out part) and then take the best course that we know on how we can help prevent this so our kids and grandkids can live a better life. We all know that something is happening but I'll bet there isn't one person out there doing everything possible to to help trim down on this CO2, they just want to blame someone else.